Stokes set to face contempt charge

The battle between
Seven
Media Group and former senior executive
James Warburton
took a dramatic twist on Friday when Mr Warburton “charged" Seven’s largest shareholder,
Kerry Stokes
, with contempt of court.

In the NSW Supreme Court Mr Warburton’s lawyers asked for an order that Mr Stokes be “punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt by committal to a correctional centre, or fined".

Mr Stokes was represented by top barrister
Tom Hughes
, QC (who charges an estimated $15,000 a day) and who made it clear his client would defend the charge. It will be heard by judge Michael Pembroke in June.

The claim marked a sharp escalation in the Seven-Warburton battle, which started after Mr Warburton quit as Seven Media’s chief sales and digital officer on March 2 to join Ten Network as chief executive.

Seven Media argued his starting date should be delayed by 14 months from July 14 this year to October 14, 2012.

It alleges Mr Warburton could not resign until his contract expired on July 13 and then had to give three months’ notice. It also claimed the management equity plan Mr Warburton signed in 2007 included a 12-month non-compete clause.

On April 11, while Seven Media chief executive
David Leckie
was in the witness box (followed by Mr Warburton), Mr Stokes was in Perth to attend a shareholder meeting of West Australian Newspapers.

Shareholders were voting on a plan for WA Newspapers to buy Seven Media. Both companies were controlled by Mr Stokes. The takeover was approved.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

After the meeting, Mr Stokes rejected some claims Mr Warburton made in his affidavit, telling reporters: “If you are saying that James Warburton, in the process of trying to improve his case, may have embellished upon the truth, that would be more closer to being accurate, I would think."

Mr Stokes’ comments did not go unnoticed. The next morning Mr Warburton’s lawyer, John West, QC, told the court Mr Stokes had “taken it upon himself to publicly vilify the witness in the case whilst this man [Mr Warburton] is under cross-examination in public and may amount to contempt".

Justice Pembroke called the comments “inappropriate at a minimum" but said it would not affect his decision.

In his contempt motion Mr Warburton said Mr Stokes made the comments to “affect adversely the due administration of justice" and would have a tendency to “disparage or vilify" him.

But on Friday Justice Pembroke tried to distance himself from his initial comments.

He told Mr Warburton’s lawyer: “I want to make it quite clear I did not invite Mr Warburton to charge Mr Stokes with contempt. I merely queried what it was Mr West was contending.

“It made no difference to me whatsoever," he said. “I can’t see how it would make any difference to any judge." He said there was “no legal inference whatsoever" attached to the comments, but added “people do not usually comment in a critical way on the evidence of a witness [while they are still giving evidence]".

Executives from Seven and Ten declined to comment on Mr Warburton’s contempt allegation against Mr Stokes.